80 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 



(4) Effect on the Cost of the Operation 



The really fundamental objections to the top-lopping law on the 

 part of most lumbermen who are opposed to it, are, the additional cost, 

 the annoyance involved through inspections by State officers, and the 

 resulting interference with the methods of handling woods work. The 

 claim is made that the beneficial results are not commensiu-ate with 

 the cost. As previously indicated, some operators claim that top- 

 lopping is a distinct detriment, and say that they would, if they had 

 the option, prefer to pay the extra cost to the State and be relieved of 

 the necessity of lopping. Others argue that much more efficient 

 protection from fire cotdd be secured through the expenditure of the 

 same amount of money in some other way, as on patrol. The 

 essence of the problem is, then, whether the benefits of top-lopping 

 are worth what it costs. 



Estimates of Cost 

 Claims of operators, as to the added cost imposed by lopping, vary 

 widely, ranging from s cents to 50 cents per cord. Conditions also 

 undoubtedly vary widely, so that no positive statement will hold good, 

 except in a very general way. 



The preponderance of evidence seems to indicate, that, tmder 

 average conditions, the additional cost imposed by the top-lopping 

 law is from 10 to 15 cents for each cord of pulpwood taken out. Fifteen 

 cents per cord is the amoimt with which the Santa Clara Ltunber Com- 

 pany credits their camps, on account of additional work required in 

 lopping tops. The Empire State Forest Products Association says it 

 costs s to 10 cents per cord to lop tops. Finch, Pruyn and Company, 

 large pvilp operators in the Adirondacks, estimate the added cost at 5 

 cents per standard, or 15 cents per cord. Graves states in "Principles 

 of Handling Woodlands," that the cost of lopping the tops of spruce 

 on the early operations in the Adirondacks was 12 cents per thousand 

 feet of lumber cut. This would correspond to approximately 6 cents 

 per cord. Here, however, it must be considered that the operation 

 was for lumber only, and that, consequently, only the larger trees were 

 cut. As a result, the amount of brush per unit of measurement was low, 

 whereas on a ptdp operation the trees will average much smaller and the 

 amount of brush per unit of measurement will be relatively high. 



These figures, aside from the one quoted from Graves, cover the 

 cost of lopping small trees which cannot be utilized, but which must 

 be cut and lopped in connection with road work. 



They cover also the cost of lopping trees felled but found to be culls, 

 from which little or no utilization is possible, but which must neverthe- 



